Wheeler v. Alison et al
Filing
80
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/20/2014 denying 73 Motion directing Litigation Coordinator to provide assistance and denying 74 , 77 Motions to Compel. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERIC WHEELER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ALLISON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:12cv00861 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
DIRECTING LITIGATION COORDINATOR TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE
(Document 73)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL
(Documents 74 and 77)
17
Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of
18
19
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
20
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendants Allison, Duck, Murrieta, Lowder, Loftis, Neubarth, Ancheta, Ross and Mui have
21
22
appeared in this action. As a result, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on January
23
17, 2014. The discovery deadline is currently June 16, 2014.
24
A.
25
Motion for Assistance
On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he requests an order directing the
26
Litigation Coordinator at any prison where he may be located to (1) provide assistance in locating
27
witnesses and obtaining their contact information; (2) provide phone service for interviewing his
28
witnesses; and (3) provide internet, fax and email access.
1
1
Generally, a prisoner proceeding pro se has a range of discovery tools available, including
2
interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admission. “Parties may obtain
3
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . .
4
5
6
7
Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The responding party is
obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and
any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). For document production
8
requests, responding parties must produce documents which are in their “possession, custody or
9
control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).
10
11
Moreover, it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove the elements of his claim and he is not necessarily
entitled to assistance simply because he is incarcerated.
12
13
14
In certain situations, an incarcerated plaintiff may be entitled to narrowly-tailored assistance,
but such situations require a specific showing of the discovery sought and the need for assistance.
Here, Plaintiff has made only a blanket request for assistance and the Court will not grant such relief.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
B.
Motions to Compel
Also on March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to disclose information
that Plaintiff feels should have been included in Defendants’ initial disclosures. Plaintiff identifies
documents such as personnel files, personnel disciplinary records and confidential inmate sources.
However, Defendants’ disclosures are limited to documents and other materials that they intend to use
in their defense. To the extent Plaintiff believes that he needs this information to support his claims,
he may request the information through discovery.
Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), the parties must supplement or
correct the disclosures in a timely manner, and failure to do so may result in the inability to present
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
such evidence in support of a motion, or at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). In other words, the sanctions
from failure to properly disclose are self-executing.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Plaintiff filed a similar motion on March 17, 2014, in which he requests that the Court order
Defendants to produce information related to confidential inmate sources. Again, Plaintiff must
request this information through discovery requests made to Defendants. There is no indication that
Plaintiff has propounded any discovery requests on Defendants. If Plaintiff requests the information
through discovery and finds Defendants’ responses to be inadequate, he may file a motion to compel
at that time.
9
Plaintiff’s motions are therefore DENIED.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
13
/s/ Dennis
March 20, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
14
L. Beck
3b142a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?